- Trang Chủ
- Quản lý dự án
- Effects of intra organizational justice and personality traits on organizational commitment: a study on health care employees
Xem mẫu
- International Journal of Management (IJM)
Volume 11, Issue 5, May 2020, pp. 138-159, Article ID: IJM_11_05_014
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=5
Journal Impact Factor (2020): 10.1471 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
DOI: 10.34218/IJM.11.5.2020.014
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
EFFECTS OF INTRA-ORGANIZATIONAL
JUSTICE AND PERSONALITY TRAITS ON
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: A STUDY
ON HEALTH-CARE EMPLOYEES
Tahir Yeşilada
European University of Lefke, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Science
Department of Business Administration, Lefke, Northern Cyprus, TR-10 Mersin, Turkey;
Email: tyesilada@eul.edu.tr
Tuğçe Denizgil
Near East University, Faculty of Medicine, Near East Boulevard, ZIP: 99138, Nicosia /
TRNC. Mersin 10 – Turkey; Email: tugce.denizgil@neu.edu.tr
ABSTRACT
The study investigates the relationship between organizational commitment,
organizational justice and personality traits. Organizational justice and
organizational commitment are among the most frequently discussed topics in
management and organization fields. Employees' perceptions of positive or negative
justice towards their organizations outline their comprehension of whether they are
being treated fairly or not. The purpose of this study is to measure the influence of
personality traits and organizational justice perceptions of health-care employees on
organizational commitment and to show the relation between these concepts. The
survey was conducted by using face-to-face surveys with 250 healthcare employees
who are working in a private hospital. The results suggests that there is a statistically
significant difference between the scores of the healthcare personnel's fair distribution
subscale on organizational justice perception scale according to their educational
status. In addition, it was found that the difference between the scores of the
participants on the other scales and subscales was not statistically significant.
Keywords: Health Care, Organizational commitment, Organizational justice, Personal
Traits
Cite this Article: Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil, Effects of Intra-Organizational
Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study on Health-
Care Employees, International Journal of Management, 11 (5), 2020, pp. 138-159.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=5
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 138 editor@iaeme.com
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
1. INTRODUCTION
In the 21st century, personality has become the focus of many disciplines such as
management psychology, sociology, and industrial clinical psychology due to the growing
prevalence of human resources. In particular, the interest of different disciplines in the subject
has led to different definitions which vary according to the point of view. In this context, it is
possible to evaluate personality from the point of view of the individual himself and others:
Personality is information about the individual's own physiological, mental and spiritual
characteristics (Selvi, 2011).
Organizational commitment is defined as the one’s free willingness and willingness to
strive for the benefit of the organization in order for one to adopt the organization in its own
favor, to incorporate its purpose-values into practice (Porter, 1974, Yousef,2003). Nowadays,
it is becoming progressively more important to know that employees have higher
organizational commitment and higher participation to achieve improved overall performance
(Aslan, 2008, Dorgham 2012).
Meyer and Allen argue that; there are three sub dimensions of organizational
commitment; emotional, continuance, and normative commitment. According to this,
emotional commitment and the desire to stay in the organization because of the values and
aims of employees' organizations (Yalçın and İplik, 2005).
Organizational justice can be expressed as "employees' perceptions of how wages, awards,
punishments and promotions are made in the organization, how such decisions are taken or
taken, and how they are told to employees" (İçerli, 2010). Beliefs about whether employees
are subjected to justice by their managers during organizational justice in relation to
organizational justice are influential on organizational behaviour (Ercan, 2010).
With the development of civilization, mankind has begun to organize in various forms and
this organization has been increased with various collaborative institutions established in both
social and economic life. The employee's sense of responsibility and the development of
devotion is one of the cornerstones of organizational commitment. The effect of
organizational justice and personality traits on organizational commitment was examined in
this study (Selvi, 2011).
The low level of organizational commitment of the hospital staff negatively affects the
patient care quality, patient safety, professional values, decreasing the quality of human power
and increasing the cost for the hospital administrations. One of the most important
determinants of the decision to leave the workplace is the increasing importance of
commitments under these circumstances (Top and Gider, 2013).
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment can be defined as affective reactions of employees for their
workplaces according to Cook and Wall (1980). In addition this concept involved with
attachment feeling in the way of values and goals of the organizations. Buchanan (1974)
describes organizational commitment with three dimensions. Identification which expresses
the internalization of organizations’ goal is the first one. On the other hand second dimension
is; involvement which is about psychological absorption. As a third one; commitment refers
to be belonging to an organization (Cook and Wall, 1980). Furthermore, Allen and Meyer
(1990) identify two types of commitment which is called affective commitment and
continuance.
Several prior studies have addressed, high organizational commitment, besides the
productivity of employees, it can be reason with a decrease in absenteeism, stress and other
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 139 editor@iaeme.com
- Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil
problems related to workplace (Ward & Davis, 1995). In addition to these things, it allows the
individual to turn to voluntary tendencies in organizational life (Katz & Kahn, 1977). While
many sub-dimensions of attachment are mentioned in the literature, the most accepted three-
dimensional organizational balancing model will be presented. These three dimensions are
called emotional attachment, normative attachment, and continuity attachment. Emotional
attachment refers to the emotional attachment of the employee to the organization. This
emotional influence can also be explained as the association of the employee's identity to the
organizational identity (Dawley et al., 2005). Employees with high emotional attachment to
their organizations, they continue to become members with their own will (Meyer and Allen,
1991). Continued commitment; is that the employee continues to be a member because he
thinks that the separation from the organization will be costly to him or her (Güney, 2012). In
the terms of continuing commitment, employee’s feeling (emotions) have played a minor role
about attach them to the organization (Yüceler, 2009), but it is thought to be effective on
gender and marital status. It can be said that married employees or divorced women feel the
continuing commitment to discard of the costs they would have to pay if they quit the job
(Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972). On the other hand, elderly and senior employees seem to be
more hesitant to abandon their retirement plans and to leave their organizations they are trying
to lose their accumulated organizational gains. Similarly, the lack of other business
alternatives has also prompted employees to withdraw their thoughts about secession from the
organization they are in (Cohen, 1999). The third and final dimension is related to the norms
of personal loyalty of the employee and is the normative commitment that results in accepting
him as a task with the feeling of being obliged to remain in the organization and to be loyal
(Uyguç & Çimrin, 2004). He accepts to stay in an organization working in normative loyalty
with just a feeling of loyalty and a moral imperative. Unlike emotional attachment, he feels
obligated not because he wants it to be, but because he believes that it is right to act this way.
(Gray & Wilson, 2008) Finally, normative commitment; is the commitment they show
because employees feel obligated with moral obligations. Finally, normative commitment; is
the commitment they show because employees feel obligated with moral obligations.
Employees with high normative values, individual values and organizational stay because of
their obligations, they see their work as an assignment to them and they feel that this is the
right behaviour (Uyguç and Çımrın, 2004). In normative commitment, the moral values of
employees are dominant and individuals are influenced by their previous experience (Güney,
2012). Allen and Meyer (1990) found significant relationships between emotional and
normative attachment sub-dimensions. Another finding is that; continuance and normative
attachment are related to each other, while the relationship between emotional attachment and
continuing attachment is inconsistent. On the other hand, these three types of loyalty also
have very different effects on the way of directing the behaviours of the workers in various
characters, while providing an organizational context (Çetin, 2004); Desire for emotional
attachment, need for continuity, and commitment for normative attachment (Allen and Meyer,
1990). Ultimately, organizational commitment reflects a psychological condition that
characterizes the relationship of employees to their organizations and is effective in their
decision to become a permanent member of the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Therefore, it is probable that the three psychological states of the employees mentioned above
may live at the same and different degrees. That is, while some employees feel a strong need
and a strong need to stay in the organization, they may not be willing to behave, or what a
necessity to stay organized they may want to stay in the organization if they do not need it
(Desert & Rose, 2005). For this reason, it is extremely important for the managers to have the
attitudes and behaviours required to increase the level of their employees' commitment to
their organizations.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 140 editor@iaeme.com
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
2.2. Personality Traits
Theories found in the books of personality psychology are often known by the name of their
theorist. The most important theorists are; Freud, Jung, Adler, Horney, Sullivan, Berne,
Allport, Cattell, Sheldon, Rogers, Erikson, Maslow (Özkalp & Zıllıoğlu, 1983). Personality
psychology; People are interested in their own behaviours, feelings and ways of thinking.
Hence, the predictions for the personality development of each theory are different. There are
six different theories in this regard (Burger, 2006). In the description of the personality, the
two most important representatives of dimensional models are Cloninger's "Psychobiological
Personality Model" and Costa and McCrae's "Five Factor Personality Theory". The Five
Factor Theory of Personality is based on the basic assumption that the individual differences
shown by humans will be coded in all languages in the world, spoken to the spoken language,
and that there can be a classification that covers the human personality structure from the
words. In recent years, psychologists have witnessed the emergence of the Five Factor
Personality Model as a common definition of personality assessment. It is inevitable that there
are different approaches than one trying to explain the same phenomenon. In addition, human
beings have difficulty in objectively investigating because they are emotional beings (Karasar,
1994). Since the existence of mankind various opinions and thoughts have been put forward
on personality. When we look at the last 30 years in the field of personality, it is seen that the
biggest discussions are among the person - situation approaches against the person. According
to the "Five Factor Personality Model" developed by Goldberg et al., The histrionic and
narcissistic personality disorders of those who score high outward dimension; those with low
scores at this dimension are likely to have a shyness and schizoid personality disorder.
Antisocial personality disorder is thought to be associated with low scores on compromise,
paranoid, antisocial and narcissistic personality disorder, while high scores on compromise
are associated with dependent personality disorder (Şenyuva, 2007). According to Digman
(1990), the Five Factor of personality is an important place in the classification of personality
traits (Coskun, 2012).
While there are many approaches to personality in the literature, it is seen that the "feature
approach", which is based on the behaviors that can be observed by the people, is focused on
the individual differences to explain the personality. This approach emerges from the analysis
of the words people use to describe others and comes to the forefront, with the qualities such
as the consistency of behaviors exhibited by people in situations and the continuity of these
behaviors in hereditary characteristics (McCrae et al 2001). In this approach, factor analyzes
(Cattel, 1956; Eysenck, 1951) constitute the basis for studies on what constitutes the
personality structure, and a five-factor structure of personality can be explained in terms of
the five dimensions (Borgatta, 1964). Many studies of disagreement among researchers about
the naming of this work indicate that it is generally accepted in terms of revealing differences
among individuals (Bazana and Stelmack, 2004, Costa and McCrae, 1995, Goldberg, 1990,
McCrae and John, 1992, Et al., 2005, Schmitt, Allik and Benet-Martinez, 2007). This
personality structure includes the dimensions of "responsibility", "compatibility", "emotional
balance", "openness" and "extroversion" (Costa and McCrae, 1995). The researchers tried to
reveal the relationships between different variables with personality traits with the studies
done up to this day.
2.3. Organizational Justice
The concept of justice can be generally described as "giving the right to self." (TDK, 2016).
In the organizational field, justice describes the fairness of the managers (Pillai et al., 1999).
Organizational justice is the adaptation of the concept of social justice to organizations
(Eilmezkol, 2011) is a valued concept in relation to the distribution of resources (Titrek,
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 141 editor@iaeme.com
- Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil
2009). According to Greenberg (1990), organizational justice is a concept that affects
employees' job attitudes and determines the capacity of their social interactions within the
organization. The basis of the concept of organizational justice is the "Theory of Equity" that
Adams indicates. This theory is based on the fact that employees their interests are based on
their comparison with what other employees have achieved (Yeniceri et al., 2009). Adams has
tried to explain with the help of an equation called the equality equation of justice. The
inequality of this formula will indicate an unfair situation. (Özen, 2002). Distributive justice
and procedural justice are the two major perspectives on which justice research has typically
focused by scholars generally. Various approaches to the issue have emerged by recognizing
that the perception of organizational justice is closely related to the behavior of employees.
First, organizational justice was tried to be explained by the concept of distributive justice
(Irak, 2004). Distributive justice is born as a result of Adams' theory of equality, and is related
to the distribution of gains such as wages and promotion of employees (Eker, 2006).
Distributive justice refers to the equitable sharing of resources to employees whose
proportional shares are predetermined (Özdevecioğlu, 2003). But having a job and paying for
it is the only source of satisfaction cannot be. In addition, fair managerial behavior in
employee decisions is at the core of the distribution justice (Foley et al., 2002). It can be
argued that procedural justice (Jahangir, et al., 2006), which deals with how managers take
their resources distribution decisions, has developed important perspectives on emotional and
behavioral aspects of the decision-making process in general (Khan et al., 2010). Social
sciences specialists have emphasized in their various works that the concept of justice is
provided by factors such as wage equality, standardization of promotion possibilities, working
conditions, performance appraisal criteria, various rationales and other possibilities provided
(Greenberg, 1990). Operational justice is more at the discretion of decision makers, which
requires managers to be fair when making decisions (Demirel and Dinçer, 2011). Interactional
justice is about what the manager says about the decision process. The interactional justice
manager has the ability to direct employees with respect and sensitivity, as well as to
encourage them by making logical explanations to their employees (Colquitt, 2001).
Interactional justice, who deals with the relationships among people in organizations, also
emphasizes the relevance of interpersonal communication (Cohen-Charash and Spector,
2001). In short, interactional justice is concerned with the perception of social relations
between managers and employees. (Demirel and Dinçer, 2011). Greenberg argues that in his
work in 1993 he distinguished between interactional justice as interpersonal justice and
informational justice, suggesting that the concept of justice is four dimensions (Colquitt et al.,
2001). In the literature, there are various studies which Greenberg proves and does not prove
this argument, but here the broadly agreed distributional, procedural and interactive
dimensions of justice will be taken as basis (Bağcı, 2013). Take in consideration the studies
on organizational justice research, organizational it is seen that justice is generally examined
in two important dimensions as distribution justice and operational justice. (McFarlin &
Sweeney, 1992; Love & Vodanovic, 1995; Lee, 2000; Lemons & Jones, 2001; Rıfai, 2005).
Operational justice is justice perceptions of the means used to determine the amount of gains
achieved by distribution fair justice workers (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). In other words,
distribution justice is about justice perceptions of the amount of gains that an employee
expects to receive in response to the value added to the value added during the time spent in
the organization using knowledge and experience.
Employees also pay attention to whether or not there is a distinction between those
affected by decisions such as themselves as well as the correctness of decisions taken by
organizations. If employees perceive that organizational decisions and management activities
are unjust or unfair, they can act with feelings of resentment and resentment, and they may be
exposed to such injustice and behavior as work disruption, absenteeism, theft (Greenberg,
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 142 editor@iaeme.com
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
1990) and sabotage (Ambrose et al.2002). On the contrary, if they perceive that the processes
are fairly regulated in taking decisions within the organization, they are willing to respond to
this positive situation and cause a strong connection between the organization and the
employee. (Murphy et al., 2003). Organizational justice, therefore, shows that they respect the
management's employees and eventually build a bridge of trust that strengthens their
organizational commitment, characterized by shared values, shared desire to remain in the
organization, and willingness to make an effort on behalf of the organization (Lambert, 2003).
Various researches have been conducted on the employees' perception of organizational
justice perception attitudes (Konovsky et al., 1987, McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Leow &
Khong, 2009). For example, Colquitt et al. (2001) found that positive perceptions of justice
perceived positively on organizational commitment according to the results of research
conducted on 183 studies in the literature in order to determine the effects of organizational
justice dimensions on various organizational outcomes. Pillai et al. (2001) have found that, in
their study involving the United States, India, Germany and China, the perceived distribution
justice and procedural justice differed significantly across cultures, but that employees had a
significant influence on their commitment to their organizations. In a similar study, Rahim et
al. (2001) found significant relationships between distribution justice, procedural justice, and
interaction justice and commitment in their research on workers from different cultures, such
as the US and Bangladesh. Wang et al. (2010) found that distribution justice, procedural
justice and interaction justice were influential on emotional commitment from organizational
justice sub-dimensions and only interaction justice was effective on normative commitment
from organizational commitment sub-dimensions in their studies of organizational
commitment in the effect of organizational justice on organizational commitment.
In different researches on this subject have different results. According to this; Wasti
(2001) found that organizational justice perceptions have a positive effect on employees'
emotional and normative loyalty, while continuity has no effect on loyalty in their research on
public and private occupations. Seymen et al. (2009) concluded that employees had a negative
effect on their normative commitment to their organizational perceptions of personal justice
and information justice, and a negative effect on their persistence commitment, in the research
they conducted on hotel employees operating in the provinces of Çanakkale. In the same
study, there was no effect on the emotional commitment of interpersonal and informational
justice perceptions. Yazicioglu & Topaloglu (2009), who carried out a similar study on
accommodation operations in Muğla province, determined a positive relationship between
distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice and commitment. Yavuz
(2010) found that only the procedural justice sub-dimension had a significant effect on the
emotional attachment sub-dimension in the study of teachers' organizational justice and
organizational culture perceptions of their effects on organizational commitment.
Cihangiroğlu (2011) found that the distribution justice and procedural justice perceptions had
a positive effect on all three dimensions of organizational commitment in his work on
physicians in military hospitals affiliated to the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) Health
Command. He found that he only had positive influence on the continuity commitment of
interpersonal justice from the perceptions of interpersonal justice and information justice, and
had no effect on other dimensions of attachment. Finally, it has been observed that there is no
significant relationship between organizational justice perception and emotional commitment
and normative commitment and positive attitude towards continuing commitment in the
studies conducted by Arslantürk & Şahan (2012) on various officials at Manisa Provincial
Security Directorate. Such a study was not found in the literature about personality traits,
organizational commitment and organizational justice.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 143 editor@iaeme.com
- Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil
3. METHOD
The importance of this study; there are studies in the literature that reveal the perceptions of
organizational commitment and organizational justice. There is not enough empirical study on
the relationship between personality traits, organizational justice perception and
organizational commitment.
The purpose of this study; is to measure the influence of personality traits and
organizational justice perceptions of hospital employees on organizational commitment and to
show the relation between these concepts.
3.1. The Hypothesis of the Research
1. Hypothesis : There is a significant and positive relationship between process justice
perception and organizational commitment..
2. Hypothesis : There is a significant and positive relationship between the distribution justice
perception and organizational commitment.
3. Hypothesis : There is a significant and positive relationship between interpersonal justice
perception and emotional attachment..
4. Hypothesis : There is a significant and positive relationship between the perception of
informational justice and organizational identification.
5. Hypothesis : There is a positive and significant relationship between the distribution justice
perception and continuing commitment.
6. Hypothesis: There is a positive and significant relationship between normative commitment
and organizational justice commitment subscales..
7. Hypothesis : There is a positive and significant relationship between dimensions of
organizational commitment and personality traits.
8. Hypothesis: There is a significant and positive relationship between the dimensions of
organizational justice and personality traits.
9. Hypothesis: There is a significant and positive relationship between sociodemographic
variables and organizational justice commitment.
10. Hypothesis: There is a significant and positive relationship between sociodemographic
variables and organizational commitment.
11. Hypothesis: There is a significant and positive relationship between sociodemographic
variables and personality traits.
3.2. The Model of the Research
As it is apparent from the study, the possible relationships between organizational
commitment, organizational justice and personality trait variables and their sub-dimensions
will be investigated.
3.3. The Instruments
The purpose of this study is to determine the organizational commitment levels of health
workers working in a private hospital. The survey was conducted, in Nicosia 2016 and using
face-to-face surveys with 250 healthcare employees who are working in a private hospital and
accept to participate this study.
The socio-demographic information form developed by the researcher in order to gather
information on health workers in the research. It contains; ender, age, educational status,
demographic information as well as questions about how often it participates in the activities
of the institution, the position in the institution and the way of working.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 144 editor@iaeme.com
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
An 18-item "Organizational Commitment Scale" developed by Meyer, Allen and Smith
(1993) and Turkish adapted by Wasti (2000) was used to measure organizational
commitment. . In the organizational commitment scale; the first six questions on this scale
measure the emotional attachment dimension, the second six questions measure the
continuing attachment dimension, and the last six questions measure the normative
commitment dimension. As the questions of Scale 3, 4, and 5 were inversely graded, the
answers of these questions were reversed when analyzes were made. (1) "I do not participate",
(2) "I agree in the middle", (3) "I agree mostly", (4) "I agree with each other"(5) "I fully
agree" expressions are included. The Turkish validity and reliability study of the
Organizational Commitment Scale was conducted by Wasti (2000). The scale consists of
three sub-dimensions, each consisting of 6 questions. The 5-point Likert-type scale, in which
employees' loyalty levels are evaluated, is structured strictly for each statement = 5, agree = 4,
undecided = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1. The lowest score that can be taken from
the scale is 18, the highest score is 90. As the score increases, the level of commitment also
increases. It is a widely used measure in many researches in Turkey (Boylu et al., 2007,
Özdevecioğlu, 2003, Kurşunoğlu et al., 2010, Aslanturk and Şahan, 2012, Belli and Ekici,
2012, Acar, 2013, Wasti, 2000).
Moreover, with the aim of measuring the organizational justice of the participants,
Organizational justice perceptions were measured by Colquitt's (2001) four-dimensional
Organizational Justice Perception Scale. According to this, there are 7 expressions in the
aspect of operational justice, 4 in distribution justice, 4 in interpersonal justice and finally 5 in
information justice dimension. Each of the phrases was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale
rated (1) strongly disagree (5) completely agree.
In order to measure personality traits; On the basis of the Five Factor Personality Features
Model, Allport (1937)’s personality trait theory is in line with the five personality model;
Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience
(McCabe et al., 2013). In addition to the five Factor Personality Inventory (5FKE) developed
by Somer et al. (2000) developed by NEO-PI-R and developed by Costa and McCrae (1987)
in Turkey and adapted to Turkish (Gülgöz, 2002) There is no personality test (Bacanlı, İlhan
& Aslan, 2009). In recent years, the Five Factor Personality Model has been frequently
considered as a high-level factor that can be used to understand other personality concepts. In
this research 44 items form were used in study. The adaptation of the scale to Turkish was
done by Sumer and Sumer (2005) within the context of Turkey as a study on the profiles and
patterns of self-identification of people within 56 countries. The reasons for the selection of
the five-factor personality scale in this study. The validity and reliability of this work in the
intercultural context has been demonstrated. In the studied study, the five factor personality
scale was Cronbach Alfa Reliability, values of "neuroticism", "extroversion", "developmental
openness", "compatibility" and "self-discipline" as .79, .77, .76, .70 and .78, respectively
(Schmitt et al., 2007).
3.4. Sample
The survey was conducted in Nicosia using face-to-face surveys with 250 healthcare
employees who are working in a private hospital and accept to participate this study. This
research is a descriptive and quantitative study. Survey research technique was used in this
research. The sample is composed of 250 health workers who are working at the education
and research hospital in Nicosia. Surveys were conducted by going to their departments.
Participants’ occupations included doctors, nurses, audiologists, psychologists, paramedics,
physiotherapists and dieticians.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 145 editor@iaeme.com
- Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil
Table 1 Demographic Information on Sampling
Demographic characteristics Mean
Woman 65.2
Gender Man 34.8
Total 100.0
Demographic characteristics Mean
Married 45.6
Marital statue Single 54.4
Total 100.0
Demographic characteristics Mean
High school 4.4
University 16.4
Master degree 62.4
Education level
PhD 4.8
Medicine 28.4
Total 100.0
Demographic characteristics Mean
20-29 48.4
30-39 27.2
AGE 40-49 11.6
50-59 11.2
60-69 1.6
Total 100.0
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 146 editor@iaeme.com
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
Table 2 Identification Characteristics of Participants
Number (n) Percent (%)
Gender
Woman 163 65,2
Male 87 34,8
Age
Between 20-29 121 48,4
Between 30-39 68 27,2
Between 40-49 29 11,6
Between 50-59 32 12,8
Educational status
High School / Associate Degree 51 20,4
Bachelor’s degree/ graduate 127 50,8
Specialization in medicine 72 28,8
Marital status
The married 114 45,6
Single 136 54,4
Working time
Less than 1 year 30 12,0
1-5 years 68 27,2
6-10 years 80 32,0
11-15 years 39 15,6
16 years and over 33 13,2
Attendance to activity
Always 40 16
Often 59 23,6
Sometimes 112 44,8
Rarely 33 13,2
Never 6 2,4
Number of institutions previously worked
First institution to work 72 28,8
One 93 37,2
Two 55 22,0
Three and over 30 12,0
Position
Doctor 72 28,8
Nurse 116 46,4
Physiotherapist 13 5,2
Audiologist 3 1,2
Psychologist 4 1,6
nutritionist 8 3,2
Technician 34 13,6
Title
No 157 62,8
Dr. 4 1,6
Expert 21 8,4
Assist. Prof. 26 10,4
Assoc. Prof. 29 11,6
Prof. 13 5,2
Study period at the institution
Less than 1 year 21 8,4
1 year 51 20,4
2 years 72 28,8
3 years 67 26,8
4 years 16 6,4
5 years 16 6,4
6 years 7 2,8
Working mode
Without shift 144 57,6
Shift 106 42,4
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 147 editor@iaeme.com
- Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil
Table 2 provides the descriptive characteristics of the health personnel involved in the
survey.
Table 1 shows that 65.2% of the participants were female and 34.8% were male, 48.4%
were in the 20-29 age group, 27.22% in the 30-39 age group, 11.6% In the 40-49 age group
and 12,8% in the 50-59 age group. It is stated that 20.4% of the participants are graduated
from high school / associate degree, 50.8% are graduated from undergraduate / graduate
degree and 28.8% are graduated as specialist in the enrollment, 45.6% are married and 54.4%
Single, 12.0% for less than 1 year, 27.2% for 1-5 years, 32.0% for 6-10 years, 15.6% for 11-
15 years And 13,2% were working for over 16 years, 28,8% of them were the first institutions
they were working with, 37,2% had been in an institution, 22,0% in two institutions, 12% , 0
of them have three or more institutions, 20,4% of them have worked for 1 year, 28,8% for 2
years, 26,8% for 3 years and 15,6% for 3 years and 57.6% of them are not working and 42.4%
are working in shifts.
Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the scores of participants' scales and their subscales
n s Min Max
Extraversion 250 3,52 0,45 2,00 4,50
Agreeableness 250 3,20 0,49 1,89 4,56
Conscientiousness 250 3,47 0,42 2,00 4,44
Neuroticism 250 3,37 0,61 1,75 4,38
Openness to experience 250 3,50 0,45 2,00 4,70
Fair distribution 250 2,65 0,98 1,00 5,00
Fair operation 250 2,59 0,99 1,00 5,00
Fair interaction 250 2,75 0,95 1,00 5,00
Organizational Justice Perception 250 2,66 0,92 1,00 5,00
Emotional Commitment 250 3,15 0,56 1,83 4,83
Continuity commitment 250 2,98 0,70 1,33 4,67
Normative Commitment 250 2,95 0,92 1,00 5,00
Organizational Commitment 250 3,03 0,66 1,50 4,78
When Table 3 was examined, it was found that health personnel participating in the study
had a mean of 3,52 ± 0,45 points on the extrinsic subscale, 3,20 ± 0,49 points on the softness
subscale, and 3,47 ± 0 on the self control subscale , 42 points, 3,37 ± 0,61 points on the
emotional balance subscale and 3,50 ± 0,45 points on the development openness subscale.
Accordingly, participants responded in general to "I agree" with the proposals in the sub-
dimension of extroversion, self-control and developmental openness.
When the scores of general staff and subscales of organizational justice perception were
examined, it was 2.65 ± 0.98 points on the fair distribution subscale, 2,59 ± 0,99 points on the
fairness subscale, 2 on the fairness subscale, 75 ± 0.95 points, and the average score of the
scale was found to be 2,66 ± 0,92. In the light of these results, participants' perceptions of
organizational justice are not high.
Participants were 3.15 ± 0.56 points on the emotional attachment subscale, 2.98 ± 0.70
points on the continuity subscale, and 2.95 ± 0.92 on the normative attachment subscale. It
was determined that the average score of participants was 3,03 ± 0,66. According to this, it
was determined that some of the health personnel participating in the research had high
organizational commitment and some of them were low, and participants were generally
unstable.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 148 editor@iaeme.com
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
Table 4 Comparing the scores of the participants according to their educational status from the scales
and sub-dimensions
Education n s Min Max F p
High School / Associate
51 3,56 0,48 2,00 4,38 0,44 0,64
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Extraversion 127 3,52 0,43 2,13 4,50
graduate
Specialization in
72 3,49 0,46 2,75 4,25
medicine
High School / Associate
51 3,32 0,59 2,00 4,56 2,08 0,13
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Agreeableness 127 3,17 0,45 1,89 4,56
graduate
Specialization in
72 3,16 0,48 2,22 4,56
medicine
High School / Associate
51 3,42 0,45 2,00 4,22 3,00 0,05
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Conscientiousness 127 3,44 0,38 2,11 4,44
graduate
Specialization in
72 3,57 0,44 2,56 4,33
medicine
High School / Associate
51 3,46 0,65 2,00 4,38 0,67 0,51
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Neuroticism 127 3,34 0,62 1,75 4,25
graduate
Specialization in
72 3,34 0,57 2,25 4,25
medicine
High School / Associate
51 3,49 0,50 2,00 4,20 0,25 0,78
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Openness to experience 127 3,51 0,45 2,10 4,70
graduate
Specialization in
72 3,47 0,43 2,70 4,20
medicine
High School / Associate
51 2,98 0,98 1,00 4,60 4,66 0,01*
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Fair distribution 127 2,50 0,95 1,00 5,00
graduate
Specialization in
72 2,67 0,96 1,00 4,80
medicine
High School / Associate
51 2,87 0,99 1,00 5,00 2,56 0,08
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Fair operation 127 2,51 1,01 1,00 5,00
graduate
Specialization in
72 2,54 0,94 1,00 5,00
medicine
High School / Associate
51 2,93 1,02 1,00 5,00 1,26 0,29
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Fair interaction 127 2,70 0,95 1,00 5,00
graduate
Specialization in
72 2,69 0,89 1,00 4,33
medicine
High School / Associate
51 2,93 0,96 1,00 4,64 2,86 0,06
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Organizational Justice 127 2,57 0,91 1,00 5,00
graduate
Specialization in
72 2,63 0,88 1,00 4,64
medicine
High School / Associate
51 3,16 0,58 2,00 4,67 0,38 0,68
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Emotional Commitment 127 3,17 0,55 1,83 4,83
graduate
Specialization in
72 3,10 0,57 2,00 4,17
medicine
High School / Associate
Continuity commitment 51 3,03 0,78 1,67 4,33 0,76 0,47
Degree
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 149 editor@iaeme.com
- Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil
Bachelor’s degree/
127 3,01 0,68 1,33 4,67
graduate
Specialization in
72 2,90 0,66 1,67 4,50
medicine
High School / Associate
51 2,95 1,02 1,00 4,67 0,36 0,70
Degree
Bachelor’s degree/
Normative Commitment 127 2,99 0,93 1,00 5,00
graduate
Specialization in
72 2,88 0,84 1,00 4,50
medicine
High School / Associate
51 3,05 0,74 1,56 4,39 0,55 0,58
Degree
Organizational Bachelor’s degree/
127 3,06 0,65 1,50 4,78
Cmmitment graduate
Specialization in
72 2,96 0,62 1,56 4,28
medicine
In Table 4, ANOVA results were given regarding the comparison of the scores of the
healthcare personnel participating in the research according to their educational status and
their scores from the subscales.
It was found that there was a statistically significant difference between the scores of the
healthcare personnel 's fair distribution subscale on organizational justice perception scale
according to their educational status (p
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
When the results of the independent sample t test on the comparison of the scores of the
health personnel according to the marital status according to the scale and sub-dimensions
given in Table 5 were examined, it was found that the difference between the scores of the
participants according to their marital status and the scores they got from their sub-
dimensions were not statistically significant (p> 0, 05).
Table 6 Comparison of scores according to occupational seniority of participants on scales and
subscales
Professional
n s Min Max F p
seniority
Less than 1 year 30 3,62 0,48 2,75 4,50 1,76 0,14
1-5 years 68 3,53 0,43 2,00 4,25
Extraversion 6-10 years 80 3,55 0,43 2,13 4,38
11-15 years 39 3,49 0,49 2,75 4,25
16 years and over 33 3,35 0,43 2,75 4,00
Less than 1 year 0,02
30 3,40 0,55 2,78 4,56 2,85
*
1-5 years 68 3,14 0,50 2,00 4,56
Agreeableness
6-10 years 80 3,12 0,48 1,89 4,56
11-15 years 39 3,17 0,52 2,33 4,56
16 years and over 33 3,34 0,30 2,78 4,00
Less than 1 year 30 3,39 0,39 2,56 4,44 1,44 0,22
1-5 years 68 3,42 0,41 2,00 4,22
Conscientiousness 6-10 years 80 3,55 0,45 2,11 4,33
11-15 years 39 3,51 0,44 2,56 4,33
16 years and over 33 3,42 0,35 2,56 4,00
Less than 1 year 0,02
30 3,20 0,70 1,75 4,25 3,14
*
1-5 years 68 3,55 0,63 2,00 4,25
Neuroticism
6-10 years 80 3,40 0,56 2,25 4,38
11-15 years 39 3,27 0,58 2,25 4,13
16 years and over 33 3,19 0,58 2,25 4,25
Less than 1 year 30 3,52 0,48 2,70 4,70 1,18 0,32
1-5 years 68 3,52 0,45 2,00 4,20
Openness to experience 6-10 years 80 3,54 0,42 2,10 4,30
11-15 years 39 3,35 0,42 2,70 4,00
16 years and over 33 3,49 0,54 2,70 4,20
Less than 1 year 30 2,71 1,05 1,00 4,60 1,62 0,17
1-5 years 68 2,59 0,95 1,00 4,60
Fair distribution 6-10 years 80 2,60 0,92 1,00 5,00
11-15 years 39 2,98 1,01 1,00 4,80
16 years and over 33 2,45 1,00 1,00 4,60
Less than 1 year 30 2,81 1,03 1,00 4,33 1,85 0,12
1-5 years 68 2,62 1,00 1,00 4,50
Fair operation 6-10 years 80 2,47 0,94 1,00 5,00
11-15 years 39 2,84 1,01 1,00 5,00
16 years and over 33 2,33 1,00 1,00 5,00
Less than 1 year 30 2,79 1,06 1,00 4,44 1,44 0,22
1-5 years 68 2,73 0,96 1,00 5,00
Fair interaction 6-10 years 80 2,76 0,87 1,00 5,00
11-15 years 39 2,97 0,92 1,00 4,33
16 years and over 33 2,44 1,02 1,00 4,33
Less than 1 year 30 2,77 1,00 1,00 4,35 1,64 0,17
1-5 years 68 2,64 0,92 1,00 4,31
Organizational Justice
6-10 years 80 2,61 0,85 1,00 5,00
11-15 years 39 2,93 0,93 1,00 4,64
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 151 editor@iaeme.com
- Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil
16 years and over 33 2,41 0,96 1,00 4,64
Less than 1 year 30 3,21 0,60 2,00 4,33 0,39 0,81
1-5 years 68 3,10 0,56 1,83 4,83
Emotional
6-10 years 80 3,13 0,56 1,83 4,83
Commitment
11-15 years 39 3,22 0,49 2,00 4,00
16 years and over 33 3,14 0,64 2,00 4,17
1-5 years 30 2,99 0,68 1,67 4,33 0,14 0,97
6-10 years 68 2,94 0,71 1,67 4,67
Continuity
11-15 years 80 3,00 0,67 1,33 4,33
commitment
16 years and over 39 3,03 0,77 1,67 4,67
1-5 years 33 2,98 0,68 1,67 4,50
1-5 years 30 2,85 0,98 1,00 5,00 0,92 0,45
Normative 6-10 years 68 2,81 0,92 1,00 4,83
Commitment 11-15 years 80 3,01 0,90 1,00 4,67
16 years and over 39 3,13 0,91 1,00 4,33
1-5 years 33 2,97 0,95 1,00 4,50
1-5 years 30 3,02 0,68 1,56 4,17 0,47 0,75
6-10 years 68 2,95 0,68 1,50 4,78
Organizational
11-15 years 80 3,04 0,61 1,50 4,39
commitment
16 years and over 39 3,13 0,67 1,56 4,33
1-5 years 33 3,03 0,71 1,56 4,28
Table 6 gives the results of ANOVA on the comparison of the scores of the health
personnel included in the survey according to occupational seniority scales and their
subscales.
When examined in Table 6, it was found that the difference between the scores of the
participants in the softness subscale of the five factor personality test according to their
occupational seniority was statistically significant (p
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
One 93 3,46 0,59 2,25 4,25
Two 55 3,24 0,64 2,00 4,25
Three and over 30 3,25 0,51 2,25 4,13
First institution to work 72 3,43 0,41 2,10 4,70 0,98 0,41
Openness to One 93 3,49 0,46 2,70 4,30
experience Two 55 3,55 0,52 2,00 4,40
Three and over 30 3,56 0,42 2,70 4,10
First institution to work 72 2,67 1,01 1,00 4,60 0,89 0,45
One 93 2,63 0,99 1,00 5,00
Fair distribution
Two 55 2,77 0,96 1,00 4,60
Three and over 30 2,41 0,88 1,00 4,00
First institution to work 72 2,66 0,97 1,00 4,33 1,11 0,35
One 93 2,62 0,98 1,00 5,00
Fair operation
Two 55 2,62 1,10 1,00 5,00
Three and over 30 2,28 0,84 1,00 4,00
First institution to work 72 2,73 0,95 1,00 4,44 2,36 0,07
One 93 2,89 0,94 1,00 5,00
Fair interaction
Two 55 2,72 1,00 1,00 4,33
Three and over 30 2,37 0,83 1,00 3,89
First institution to work 72 2,69 0,94 1,00 4,35 1,27 0,29
Organizational One 93 2,71 0,90 1,00 5,00
Justice Two 55 2,70 0,98 1,00 4,64
Three and over 30 2,36 0,81 1,00 3,96
First institution to work 72 3,11 0,56 1,83 4,83 0,20 0,90
Emotional One 93 3,15 0,54 1,83 4,67
Commitment Two 55 3,19 0,56 2,00 4,67
Three and over 30 3,15 0,67 2,00 4,83
First institution to work 72 3,03 0,73 1,67 4,67 0,15 0,93
Continuity One 93 2,96 0,67 1,67 4,67
commitment Two 55 2,98 0,71 1,33 4,33
Three and over 30 2,97 0,67 1,67 4,50
First institution to work 72 2,99 1,00 1,00 5,00 0,37 0,78
Normative
One 93 2,88 0,88 1,00 4,50
Commitment
Two 55 3,03 0,92 1,00 4,67
Three and over 30 2,94 0,91 1,00 4,50
First institution to work 72 3,04 0,71 1,50 4,78 0,14 0,93
Organizational One 93 3,00 0,63 1,56 4,33
commitment Two 55 3,06 0,65 1,50 4,39
Three and over 30 3,02 0,66 1,56 4,28
It was determined that there was no statistically significant difference between the scales
and subscales of the participants according to the number of institutions they worked with.
Table 8 Comparison of the scores of the participants according to their working scales and their
subscales
Working mode n x s t p
Without shift 144 3,51 0,45
Extraversion -0,23 0,82
Shift 106 3,52 0,45
Without shift 144 3,23 0,48
Agreeableness 1,45 0,15
Shift 106 3,14 0,51
Without shift 144 3,47 0,41
Conscientiousness -0,01 0,99
Shift 106 3,47 0,44
Without shift 144 3,39 0,59
Neuroticism 0,55 0,58
Shift 106 3,34 0,65
Without shift 144 3,51 0,47
Openness to experience 0,42 0,67
Shift 106 3,48 0,43
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 153 editor@iaeme.com
- Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil
Without shift 144 2,62 0,97
Fair distribution -0,55 0,58
Shift 106 2,69 0,98
Fair operation Without shift 144 2,53 0,99
-1,09 0,28
Shift 106 2,67 0,99
Fair interaction Without shift 144 2,71 0,98
-0,75 0,46
Shift 106 2,80 0,92
Organizational Justice Without shift 144 2,62 0,93
Perception -0,84 0,40
Shift 106 2,72 0,91
Emotional Commitment Without shift 144 3,13 0,57
-0,68 0,50
Shift 106 3,18 0,56
Continuity commitment Without shift 144 2,90 0,70
-2,32 0,02*
Shift 106 3,10 0,67
Normative Commitment Without shift 144 2,86 0,94
-1,89 0,06
Shift 106 3,08 0,89
Organizational Commitment Without shift 144 2,96 0,68
-1,89 0,06
Shift 106 3,12 0,63
Table 8 shows the results of the independent sample t test on the comparison of scales
according to the study types included in the survey and their scores from their subscales.
When Table 8 was examined, it was found that there was a statistically significant difference
between the scores of the subcategories of continuity commitment in participants'
organizational commitment scale (p
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
Table 9 shows that there were statistically significant correlations between participants' scores
on the extrinsic and emotional balance subscales of the five-factor personality test and the
scores they got from the general and sub-dimensions of the organizational commitment scale
(p
- Tahir Yeşilada and Tuğçe Denizgil
Table 11 Regression analysis results of participants' organizational commitment to organizational
justice perceptions scores
Predict
R R2 Flat. R2
Std. Error
0,55 0,31 0,30 0,55
KT sd KO F p
Regression 33,02 3,00 11,01 36,06 0,00*
Residual 75,10 246,00 0,31
Total 108,12 249,00
Unstandardized Unstandardized
Coefficients Coefficients t
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1,97 0,11 17,95
Fair distribution 0,11 0,07 0,17 1,57
Fair operation 0,11 0,08 0,17 1,37
Fair interaction 0,17 0,07 0,25 2,30
Table 11 shows that when the organizational commitment of the health personnel
participating in the survey was predicted by organizational justice scale sub-dimensions, the
model established was significant (p
- Effects of Intra-Organizational Justice and Personality Traits on Organizational Commitment: A Study
on Health-Care Employees
Table 12 gives the results of the regression analysis of the health care workers included in
the study to determine the organizational commitment of the five factor personality test and
organizational justice scale scores.
The organizational commitment of the participants was found to be significant (p
nguon tai.lieu . vn
